After a Tuesday morning meeting with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Kelly Ayotte said concerns they had about Rice’s misleading statements regarding the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya which resulted in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans have grown, not diminished.

McCain said he might oppose Rice’s nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State because Rice should have known the statements she made in interviews just a few days after the Sept. 11 attack were false.

In those interviews, Rice repeated the Party line about the attack having emerged from a protest over an anti-Islamist video. Rice apparently parroted that narrative in order to satisfy the needs of Obama’s re-election campaign. The narrative, much of which had already been repeatedly trumpeted during the Democratic National Convention was, al Qaeda had been decimated and was losing ground, public sentiments in the Middle East toward the United States had improved, and the attack was in no way connected to Obama’s foreign policy. It was later learned there the attack was a well-organized terror assault by an al Qaeda related group timed for the anniversary of 9/11.

David Petraeus, former director of the CIA, testified under oath before a congressional investigative committee that from the beginning the CIA had advised the White House that the Benghazi attack was an organized assault by al Qaeda linked terrorists. Petraeus also testified that the approved CIA report was later changed to diminish terrorist involvement.

After meeting with Rice, Graham, R-SC, said: “The bottom line is that I’m more disturbed than I was before … about how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya by Ambassador Rice does not to do justice to the reality at the time.”

GOP Senators McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC) and Ayotte (R-NH), met with Ambassador Susan Rice behind closed doors to learn her version predicating her appearance on national talk shows regarding events in Benghazi on September 11. Also in attendance was the interim director of the CIA.

Following the meeting Senator Graham continued to question Rice’s errant September 16 characterization of the attacks in Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

“I’m more disturbed now than I was before that the 16 September explanation of how four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya by Ambassador Rice,” he told reporters. He argued that her comments, in which she erroneously suggested the violence may have resulted from spontaneous riots over an anti-Muslim video, were not only wrong in hindsight, but were also “disconnected from reality” based on information that was available at the time.

“If anybody had been looking at the threats coming out of Benghazi, Libya, it would jump out at you this was Al-Qaeda storm in the making,” he said. “I’m very disappointed in our intelligence community, they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity I think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a mob that turned into a riot was far afield.”

Graham suggested that Rice should have not made any statement on the September 16 shows.

“The American people got bad information.”

“If you don’t know what happened, just say you don’t know what happened,” Graham said. “If you can do nothing but give bad information, isn’t it better to give no information at all?”

Both Graham and Ayotte suggested that they still had too many questions to support Rice if Mr. Obama were to nominate her to the Secretary of State.

“Before anybody could make an intelligent decision about promoting someone involved in Benghazi, we need to do a lot more,” said Graham. “To this date we don’t have the FBI interviews of the survivors conducted one or two days after the attack.”

(Below the video clip is the statement from Susan Rice regarding the meeting.)

This video is actually from 2010. However, with the re-election of Barack Obama, the more the Federal Government pushes the citizens of this country, the more things heat up. Is it just a matter of time before the Second Civil War of the United States starts?

From the YouTube Description:

It began with one Sheriff speaking with other Sheriffs about their oaths to uphold the constitution. A new movement is growing in this country in support of limited government, constitutional principles, states rights and a stronger role for sheriffs to play against federal abuse of power.

Who knew, after the past four years of calling Obama a Socialist, it turns out we were wrong, it is now confirmed, he is a Communist. I guess we all owe Obama an apology, only calling him a Socialist for four years when he was a Communist must have been a big hit to his ego. But now the truth is out and I think we all should apologize to Obama for calling him a mere Socialist, after all being a Communist is one step up from being a Socialist. Let’s not forget all his supporters that were screaming “Obama is not a Socialist” for the past four years, they deserve an apology as well, after all it turns out they were not lying to us.

It seems that the Russian newspaper Pravda, which was formed as the official Communist publication of the former Soviet Union, came out with a story the other day claiming that Obama is without a doubt a Communist, after all, who would know a Communist better than Russia?

The author, Xavier Lerma, goes on to say how Obama’s “cult of personality” has mesmerized the ignorant in America, who will follow the hope and change icon in much the same way as ”fools” still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia, “Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.” Now I think at this point I deserve an apology from all the Liberals who have been calling me a racist and a bigot for calling the followers of Obama idiots over the past four years, seems I was right for calling them ignorant idiots all along.

Mr. Lerma went on to say that even President Vladimir Putin was more of a capitalist than Obama. Listen to what Putin said recently, “During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself.” Putin also speaks and promotes smaller government and less taxes.

Now, my question is this, if a Communist says that he has learned his lesson, that Communism does not work, what the hell is wrong with Obama, why is he trying to take us down the same path that collapsed the Soviet Union? Many people, including myself have said that was Obama’s plan all along that he wanted to end the American way of life, now we know he just might do it.

Mr. Lerma also noticed some other similarities with the former Soviet Union and America. “Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law,” We see everyday attacks on Christianity, The ACLU and other atheist groups in America are on the attack against religious symbols. Lawsuits against religious freedom and expression seem to be an everyday occurrence.

For years, I have been watching videos on YouTube with people who fled Communist countries and came to America for freedom, but noticed that America was starting to resemble the countries that they fled. Now we have a former Communist, telling us that we are headed in the wrong direction, when are the American people going to wake-up, when we have a hammer and cycle on our flag?

Is there a reason why the former Soviet Union is now becoming more like America used to be? Of course there is, because the America of yesteryear worked and Communism does not, is that so hard to understand? I guess it must be, because America has chosen a President who wants to take us down a road that will surely fail. But many of us in America knew what his intentions were all along, the rest were Kool-Aid drinkers. I only wish Pravda had published that piece a week before the election, maybe more people would have woken up.

On November 20th, extremely liberal Washington Compost blogger Ezra Klein published a cretinous, completely wrong blogpost titled “The sequester’s defense cuts aren’t that scary, in one graph”. Therein, Klein falsely claims that the sequester’s defense cuts would be mild and would not gut the military:

“The defense cuts contained in the sequester would be a “disaster,” says Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Implementing them would “would risk hollowing out our force,” says Army Gen. Martin Dempsey. It would be a “crippling blow to our military,” says Sen. John McCain.

But not as bad a blow as the military has faced in the past. This graph comes from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and it shows real military spending since the Korean War (“real” in that the graph adjusts for inflation):

As you can see, the post-9/11 rise in military spending was larger than the rise during Vietnam and during the Cold War. And even if we implement every single cut in the sequester, the fall in spending would be less than the military experienced after Korea, Vietnam, or the Cold War.

Of course, almost everyone expects that the sequester will, eventually, be disarmed, and the actual cuts to the military will be substantially smaller than what you’re seeing on this graph. That means that despite the incredible build-up after 9/11, the fall in spending will be much less than it was after Korea, Vietnam, or the Cold War…”

He also claimed that nondefense discretionary spending will be “gutted” by the sequester and that it “doesn’t have nearly as much political protection.”

His claims are all blatant lies.

Let’s start with that utterly forged, completely wrong graph from the CSIS. It purports to show that US military spending rose above $700 bn in FY2009-FY2011 and that it will still be at $500 bn after sequestration, even in January FY2013, let alone later.

These numbers are completely wrong. Total US military spending, including GWOT and DOE defense-related program costs, NEVER reached, let alone exceeded, $700 bn at any point during the last 67 years. Never. It peaked at $688 bn in FY2011; in FY2010, it was $664 bn. Furthermore, if sequestration kicks in, the base defense budget will shrink to $469 bn in January 2013 and will stay below $500 bn for the remainder of the sequestration decade (and probably even afterwards), and even adding GWOT/OCO and DOE military spending does not bring the military budget up to $500 bn, let alone above it, especially given that these two items are ALSO subject to sequestration. (Yes, you read that correctly: war funding and funding for the DOE’s defense-related programs are ALSO subject to sequestration. Which means the DOD will have to cut base defense programs even deeper than otherwise just to pay the war bills.)

Furthermore, the sequester’s cut to the defense budget – $66 bn virtually overnight, plus cuts to GWOT and DOE nat-sec budgets – would, collectively, amount to DEEPER defense budget cuts than those that followed the end of the Vietnam War or the Cold War, although not the massacre that followed the end of the Korean War. Furthermore, they will occur while over 60,000 American troops are still in harms’ way in Afghanistan.

Moreover, these deep defense cuts will have a devastating impact on an already overstretched, overused, depleted military which must now recapitalize and replace its worn-out, obsolete equipment after over 11 years of nonstop war while still deterring many threats and protecting America as well as its crucial allies. See here and here, for example, if you don’t want to listen to professional military leaders and to veteran budget manager Leon Panetta.

Klein’s claim that defense is “politically protected” is also a blatant lie, and a very popular one. The fact is that, as I have repeatedly proven here, Republicans are NOT protecting defense and have never protected it (although I wish they would). They’ve already agreed to Sec. Gates’ killing of over 50 crucial weapon programs in 2009 and 2010; to New START ratification (i.e. to unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal); to Sec. Gates’s Efficiencies Initiative, worth $178 bn; and to the $487 bn defense cuts mandated by the first tier of the BCA. Any claim that defense spending is “politically protected” is a blatant lie.

Finally, Klein’s claim that domestic spending would be “gutted” under sequestration is also a blatant lie, as documented by Dustin Siggins here. Moreover, under sequestration, defense spending would bear over 60% of the budget cuts burden, while domestic discretionary spending would get less than 40% of the slack and would see cuts of less than $40 bn per year, distributed over many agencies. That’s not gutting. Gutting is what defense will see under sequestration.

But Siggins, while smacking down Ezra Klein, made several lies of his own, and thus displayed once again his own ignorance of defense issues.

It’s funny that Siggins, while smacking down Ezra Klein, displays his own utter ignorance.

1) Firstly, it is not true that there is “massive fraud, waste, and duplication in the defense budget”. There is some of it (as there is in the budget of every federal agency), but not “massive” or “a huge amount”. If you have evidence, Dustin, publish it immediately or zip your lips.

And no, crucial weapon programs like the Next Gen Bomber, missile defense systems, the V-22, or the Virginia class are not “waste”.

The claim that there is “massive fraud, waste and duplication” in the defense budget is spread only by 1) those who want to make deep cuts in it, regardless of the consequences, and want to deliberately mislead the public into thinking that such cuts can be done safely; and 2) those ignorant people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

2) Contracting services need to be reformed carefully and skillfully, not “drastically”.

3) Ezra Klein’s graph is utterly false. It purports to show that US military spending rose above $700 bn in FY2009-FY2011 and that it will still be at $500 bn after sequestration, even in January FY2013, let alone later.

These numbers are completely wrong. Total US military spending, including GWOT and DOE defense-related program costs, NEVER reached, let alone exceeded, $700 bn at any point during the last 67 years. Never. It peaked at $688 bn in FY2011; in FY2010, it was $664 bn. Furthermore, if sequestration kicks in, the base defense budget will shrink to $469 bn in January 2013 and will stay below $500 bn for the remainder of the sequestration decade (and probably even afterwards), and even adding GWOT/OCO and DOE military spending does not bring the military budget up to $500 bn, let alone above it, especially given that these two items are ALSO subject to sequestration. (Yes, you read that correctly: war funding and funding for the DOE’s defense-related programs are ALSO subject to sequestration. Which means the DOD will have to cut base defense programs even deeper than otherwise just to pay the war bills.)

4) The claim that “the aforementioned cuts to defense spending are essential to help the nation avoid a calamitous fiscal collapse, as well as better serve the troops…” is a blatant lie.

No, these cuts are not “essential” to avoid a calamitous fiscal collapse. The sequester’s defense cuts ($60 bn per year), or even its total cuts ($120 bn per year), would barely make a dent in the annual federal budget deficit ($1.3 trillion per year), and would thus do NOTHING to prevent a “calamitous fiscal collapse”. All that sequestration would accomplish would be to GUT the US military.

Which brings me to my next point: the sequester’s cuts would be a huge DISSERVICE to the troops and a huge damage to national security. I’m not exaggerating. Here is a holistic analysis of what sequestration would mean for America’s defense: here, here, and here.

But of course, as a non-conservative, Siggins doesn’t care.

5) To say that defense spending is “constitutional” is a vast understatement. Under the Constitution, defense is the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government, which is obligated to do whatever is necessary to provide for the country’s defense. Anything short of that is a dereliction of duty.

6) Deep defense cuts are NOT necessary to balance the budget, as proven by the budget plans of Chairman Ryan, the Republican Study Committee, Sen. Toomey, Sen. Lee, and the Heritage Foundation.

Following the re-election of Barack Obama, the rhetoric coming from Capitol Hill concerning the “Fiscal Cliff” has been extremely high, but what’s all of the commotion really about?

The Fiscal Cliff is a series of automatic spending cuts to all levels of the federal bureaucracy (mostly defense) in addition to automatic tax increases. You may have also heard of the fiscal cliff as a sequestration.

The Democrats in Congress want to resolve the “crisis”, by raising taxes on the upper tier of tax payers in order to raise revenue. The Republicans, however, do not want to raise taxes on any American, while they would like to make reforms to entitlement programs, but have offered no real solution to the revenue shortfalls in their plans.

On November 9th, the President’s first address to the media following his reelection, he declared that he would veto any legislation offering tax cuts to those making more than $250,000. This means the President doesn’t want to extend the Bush Tax Cuts any further.

The President’s position has put Republicans in between a rock and a hard place. They don’t want to raise taxes on the wealthy, but the President is basically giving them no other options.

For the past three Sundays, Bill Kristol has insisted that the Republicans in Congress should compromise with the President and submit to raising taxes on the wealthy. Remember now, this is the same man that thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate political party and the Arab Spring wasn’t real.

Bill Kristol is by all accounts a dope, and no one on Capitol Hill should heed his “advice”.

However, I do have a suggestion for the Republicans – just let the President lead America straight off of the fiscal cliff.

By coming to any agreement, the media will portray the President as the hero, and the Republicans the enemy – it’s a lose/lose for the Republicans, so just let it happen.

The facts of the matter are that no matter what happens and no matter what deal is agreed upon, America will head over a fiscal cliff.

Any freshman macroeconomic major will confirm that when you raise taxes on those who already fund the government the most (excluding China of course), you are asking for more problems than you ever originally bargained for.

Raising taxes on the wealthy may lead to short term gains, but it will create bigger problems in the long term.

If the Republicans let the President have his way, I can see two good things that come from that, aside from the many bad things.

First, every single tax paying American will feel the effects of the Presidents arrogance and liberal bias. As long as you’re a tax paying America, your taxes will be going up. Americans don’t like their taxes going up, so that will not bode well for the President.

Secondly, there needs to be spending cuts in the government. This fiscal cliff is the only foreseeable way that spending will be cut. Instead of having politicians examine the budgets of every department of the federal government, having across-the-board style cuts will force the bureaucrats to cut spending in wasteful areas.

Finally, I just don’t understand why the President doesn’t negotiate going back to the Clinton era economics. After all, the Clinton era was so magical and there were no problems then, right? All we’d need to do is raise taxes across-the-board and cut federal spending beyond any level that is currently perceived to be possible.

Either way, the next month or so left before the sequestration is to take place is going to be a quite divided time for America, aside from the Lame Duck session of Congress.

I don’t want to see taxes raised on any American, but sadly is looks likely. And for that, we should all thank Barack Obama, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and Nancy Pelosi.

Okay, let’s leave out the fact that this was an insane contest. And let’s leave out that the contestants had to be more than a little quirky. Here’s the official report from the cockroach eating contest:

A Florida man who died in October after eating dozens of live cockroaches in a contest to win a python died by choking, officials have said.

AirPowerAustralia, the most authoritative source of information on military aircraft and air defense systems, has recently released an excellent analysis of the Russian 5th generation stealth fighter PAKFA (Prospektivnoi Aviatsonnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsii), also known as the T-50, by two respected scientists, Dr Carlo Kopp and Dr Michael Pelosi. Their analysis, while omitting a few key weaknesses of the PAKFA, nonetheless demonstrates that this Russian fighter, scheduled to enter service in 2016, is superior to every Western fighter but the F-22 Raptor.

APA’s analysis focused on the T-50′s airframe design and specifically, its stealthiness (i.e. Very Low Observability). In other words, APA analysts wanted to determine how stealthy the PAKFA is/will be. To do that, they first looked carefully at the PAKFA’s shape, looking at each section of the fuselage and assessing whether it would render a strong or a weak radar return. They then used photos and publicly-known dimensions of the PAKFA and used it in a model whereby the PAKFA was tested against radars of various bands.

The result? The PAKFA will be very stealthy in most radar bands, from the S down to the L band, although not stealthy against UHF radars such as the E-2 Hawkeye’s APS-145 and the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye’s APY-9 or the UHF-ground based radars used by some Chinese air defense systems. Thus, penetrating Chinese airspace will be problematic if UHF radars are encountered: they will send 1-2 meter radar waves which will easily detect the PAKFA. Such radar waves would be way too small to detect a large stealthy aircraft such as the B-2 bomber or the USAF’s planned Next Generation Bomber, but sufficient to detect much smaller aircraft such as fighters. That includes the PAKFA.[1]

Similarly, E-2 aircraft of all variants will have no problem detecting the PAKFA. The problem is that the PAKFA (or other Russian fighters) will likely use Novator “AWACS-killer” A2A missiles to kill the Hawkeye and thus strip the opponent of the ability to detect the PAKFA.

In all higher radar bands, however, from the S to the L-band, the PAKFA will be highly stealthy, thanks to its shaping, but with the following two exceptions:

1) The PAKFA’s conventional engine nozzles are not stealthy and would thus produce a large radar wave return. This is a problem the PAKFA shares with the F-35, but it can be solved by producing slit engine nozzles, as Lockheed Martin did for the F-22.

2) The PAKFA’s beam fuselage component is deeply sculpted and therefore not stealthy. To quote APA:

“8. Where the PAK-FA falls well short of the F-22A and YF-23 is the shaping design of the lower fuselage and side fuselage, where the general configuration, wing/fuselage join angles, and inlet/engine nacelle join angles introduce similar intractable specular return problems as observed with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter design. These are inherent in the current shaping design and cannot be significantly improved by materials application. …. the PAK-FA prototype design will produce a large specular return in any manoeuvre where the lower fuselage is exposed to a threat emitter, and this problem will be prominent from the Ku-band down to the L-band.

9. This problem is exacerbated by the inboard ventral wing root fairings, claimed by some Russian sources to be pods for the concealed carriage of folding fin close combat AAMs, such as the RVV-MD/R-74 series. While these fairings do not introduce large RCS contributions from fore or aft aspects, they will adversely contribute to beam aspect RCS, especially for threats well below the plane of flight of the aircraft.

10. The tailboom shaping is reminiscent of the F-22 and F-35 designs, and will not yield significant RCS contributions from the front or aft aspects.

11. In the lower hemisphere, it will suffer penalties due to the insufficiently obtuse join angles between the wings and stabilators, and outer engine nacelles.“

The PAKFA also has a few other weaknesses which APA has not mentioned in any of its analyses of this fighter to this day.

Firstly, despite APA’s claims to the contrary, the PAKFA, like the F-35, can carry only 4 A2A missiles internally, while the F-22 can carry eight (i.e. twice as much). Thus, in any A2A combat, the F-22 gets four freebie shots at the PAKFA, and given that the Pk of any missile will never be 100%, this can be compensated only with a large missile load. By virtue of carrying twice as many missiles as the PAKFA, the F-22 stands a twice higher chance of killing the Russian fighter than of being shot down by it.

Secondly, the Irbis-E radar with which the PAKFA will likely be equipped is inferior to the F-22′s APG-77 radar.

Thirdly, despite APA’s claims to the contrary, the PAKFA has a WORSE thrust/weight ratio and a WORSE wing loading ratio than the F-22. At 50% fuel plus a full internal missile load, the PAKFA has a T/W ratio of 1.19:1 and a wing loading ratio of between 330-470 kg/sq m, more likely closer to the higher than to the lower figure, while the F-22 has a T/W ratio of 1.26:1 and a wing loading ratio of 375 kg/sq m.

So, by 2016, the Russians will be flying an aircraft that will still be inferior in terms of aerodynamic and kinematic performance, radar, and especially missile load, to the F-22, and which, absent significant redesign, will not be stealthy at all if viewed from below or from the rear.

It will be produced in much greater numbers than the F-22, however. The RuAF alone plans to procure at least 200 of these fighters and may buy more than that. Exports outside India will likely also go into the hundreds, as was the case with previous commercially successful fighters such as the Flanker family and the MiG-29 Fulcrum.

The premature closure of the F-22 production line this year, and political opposition to its reopening, mean that the only fighters capable of defeating the PAKFA that the US will have at its disposal will be its 180 or so F-22 Raptors.

That portends trouble for the US and indeed the entire West, because, as analysis by APA and by myself has concluded, the ONLY Western (not just American – Western) fighter capable of defeating the PAKFA is the F-22 Raptor.

No other Western fighter stands even a ghost’s chance of defeating this Russian fighter. Not the F-35, not the Super Bug, not other legacy aircraft, and not the Eurocanards.

The F-35′s radar signature will be, at best, the same as the PAKFA’s, its internal weapons load (4 A2A missiles) is the same as the PAKFA’s, while its combat radius, persistence, aerodynamic, and kinematic performance are all decisively inferior to that of the PAKFA, not to mention the fact that a single round from the PAKFA’s GSh-301 gun to the F-35′s single engine would bring it down.

So, while the F-35 might be a good competitor for the PAKFA in BVR combat (although even that is doubtful given its inferior speed and combat ceiling), it stands no chance of competing in WVR combat.

The Super Bug and the F-16 are decisively inferior in both combat regimes, and owing to their huge radar signatures, would be shot down by the PAKFA (or other Russian fighters) long before they could begin the WVR game.

The Eurocanards could, in theory, compete with the PAKFA in WVR combat, thanks to their very low wingloading ratios, good T/W ratios, and low weight, but even with jammers, they would be easily detected and shot down long before they could begin the WVR game with the Russian fighter, as their radar signatures are huge even in a “clean” configuration, and even more so with external stores. Jamming can only reduce the distance from which they can be detected, not prevent detection entirely. Once they’re detected, they’re toast.

Finally, an advantage the PAKFA will have over everyone except the F-15, and perhaps the Typhoon, will be to run the opponent out of gas.

In sum, the PAKFA renders every Western fighter other than the F-22 Raptor impotent, irrelevant, obsolete, and useless, in a fashion no different than the one in which the HMS Dreadnought rendered all previous battleships obsolete when she was commissioned in 1906. Despite the false claims of Robert Gates, Harry Reid, John McCain, POGO, and the CATO Institute, the F-22 was needed in 2009 and is even moreso needed now, as it is the only Western fighter capable of defeating the PAKFA.

The material reality is simple. The US will either resume F-22 production or it will lose air superiority sooner rather than later, with all the military, diplomatic, and economic consequences following from that. And then, America will get a rude awakening, just like it did 71 years ago.

[1] Even the most advanced counter-stealth radar in the world, the Nebo SVU, can send radar waves no longer than 2 meters, which is not even close to being enough to detect large stealthy aircraft like bombers. To detect them, the radar waves would have to be at least 5-6 times longer, but radars emitting such huge waves would be extremely and prohibitively costly.

I’ll say it again, Democrats want to go off the fiscal cliff. They’ll get their tax increases – $600 billion dollars worth– their revenue increases, and cuts to defense, which has been a goal of theirs for the past ten years. Goodbye Bush tax cuts, Hello Obama tax hikes. With the fledgling coalition of ‘cliff jumpers’ led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), let’s see how the impact will affect us who aren’t on Capitol Hill.

According to Paul Katzeff at Investors Business Daily, he wrote on November 16 that ending the Bush tax cuts will also be detrimental to the middle class. Contrary to popular belief, the Bush tax cuts has beneficial mechanisms, like credits for lower income households and reductions to the marriage penalty, all of which help the middle class. While conservatives know this, it’s hard to break the deafening noise of the liberal media.

Katzeff added:

The typical American family will be hit with an extra $3,222 in taxes, the [Tax] Foundation says. That’s based on a two-child family with median income of $74,563. The tax increase will amount to 4.32% of that family’s income. The Foundation’s analysis compares that family’s tax bill in 2011 — the latest year that an AMT patch existed — to what it would be in 2013, assuming all Bush and Obama tax cuts expire, the AMT remains unfixed and the 2% payroll tax cut also expires. The AMT keeps hitting more middle-income taxpayers because the standard deduction and certain itemized deductions such as state and local taxes do not reduce its bite. Also, its exemption does not grow automatically with inflation.

Families in high-individual-income states such as New Jersey would be hit hard by currently slated AMT changes. The AMT exemption level would revert to what it was 12 years ago: $45,000 for married joint filers vs. $74,450 in 2011. And credits such as the child tax credit would no longer be allowed to offset AMT liability.

But, contrary to political conventional wisdom, families in lower-income states, like Arkansas, would also take an outsized hit. That’s because three tax cuts that everyone will lose — the cut in the child tax credit, end of the 10% bracket and reduced standard deduction for married filers — are fixed increases that do not hinge on income. As a percentage of income, those increases will be biggest for lower-income families.

New Jersey is set to take the largest blow, with a looming tax increase on the typical family totaling $6,933.

As more Republicans flee Grover Norquist, Founder of Americans for Tax Reform, and his anti-tax pledge – it’s a forgone conclusion that revenue increases will occur IF there is a deal. However, Republicans should ask themselves why swallow such a demand when it’s been over 1300 days since the Democratic Congress has passed a budget. It’s not logical or moral for Republicans to cave to the soulless, rotten liberal cadre of robbers this easily during the negotiations.

The only acceptable outcome, which I would still be unhappy with, is a deal that calls for at least eight dollars in spending cuts for every new dollar in revenues. The ten-to-one deal is even more “palatable.” I hate tax increases – but the outcome of the election will make it hard for conservatives to hold their ground. Yes, the Tea Party Caucus was re-elected, with the exception of a couple of members, and Obama was re-elected by the 47% who don’t pay taxes, so there isn’t a mandate – but the clock is ticking.

Concerning revenue, Republicans should push to raise the rates on those making $500,000 or more. I’m not a fan of Warren Buffett at all – but his plan to increase the rates on the incomes of those people is reasonable for now.

First, he only calls for raising taxes on Americans earning more than $500,000 a year, not the $250,000 that President Obama is focused on. Families who earn $250,000 and live in major cities justifiably point out that this salary does not leave them feeling “rich.” So, raising the definition of rich would go a long way toward making these tax hikes more palatable.

Next, he calls for a minimum 30% tax on Americans making $1 million to $10 million or more, regardless of how this income is generated. One of the most egregious elements of the tax code is that some of America’s highest earners pay much lower tax rates than average earners, because they generate their income from capital gains or dividends or have figured out how to shelter it by taking advantage of various loopholes. This tax would ensure that most income is treated the same way.

Americans living in urban areas, with rent and other utilities, see their $250,000 income dwindle rapidly, and don’t feel rich. They’re right. As George Will aptly noted, a Chicago school superintendent with twenty years experience, who is married to a police captain with twenty years experience is almost rich within the tax increase parameters of the Obama administration.

As I’ve said, I hate raising taxes, but we cannot be the party that is blamed for going off the cliff. Democrats have planted their flag on the side of willingly going off. That’s perverse, and wrong. Let’s be the party that said NO! We’re the part of no. We don’t want to cut defense by the hundreds of billions. We don’t want $600 billion in tax increases for the American taxpayer. We have an opportunity to blunt the trauma of falling off the cliff.

However, I also understand the political ramifications if we do have a deal – and history hasn’t been to kind to us. John Fund wrote today in National Review that:

many old Washington hands recall that Republicans agreed on tax-increase-for-spending-cuts deals in 1982 under Ronald Reagan and in 1990 under George H. W. Bush. These deals politically damaged the party in the short run, and they also proved to be bad policy. The 1982 budget deal, which promised seven dollars in spending cuts for every three dollars in tax increases, was never honored. Congress agreed to less than 27 cents in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases, and President Reagan came to bitterly regret his decision to approve the deal. Ed Meese, Reagan’s senior counselor at the time and later his attorney general, recalls that the 1982 deal ‘was the worst domestic-policy mistake of the Reagan administration.’

So, this time Republicans must insist the cuts be enacted immediately. Furthermore, I like the idea Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has concerning transparency if a deal is reached. A week-long debate on any aspect of the bill, including amendments, edits, and revisions. All will be televised on C-SPAN for the public to see – if they don’t fall asleep first.

Yet, we cannot forget back when “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted [last February] in congressional testimony that the administration lacks a long-term plan to deal with the nation’s soaring $16 trillion debt. “We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem,” he told House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan. ‘What we do know is, we don’t like yours.” I’ll try to temper my cynicism, but being optimistic about government is difficult.

I hope for a deal, but, at the same time, will start cashing out my investments in the stock market in preparation for the day of reckoning.

As liberals continue to counter the criticism directed towards Ambassador Susan Rice with the race card, Eliana Johnson at National Review aptly noted how similar criticism was lobbied at Condoleezza Rice when she was nominated for Secretary of State.

In my previous post, “Deciphering Susan Rice without Being Racist” – Katrina Vanden Heuvel was exposed as using the terms “incompetent” and “liar” to describe Rice — Condoleezza Rice. Vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of the far left magazine The Nation. Eliana Johnson detailed on November 21 how left-wing media outlets and members of Congress were hurling similar accusations of incompetence and politicking at Condoleezza Rice that are we seeing ahead of Susan Rice’s possible nomination for Secretary of State.

[Condoleezza] Rice’s nomination, noted the Washington Post, garnered “the most negative votes cast against a nominee for that post in 180 years.” As the Senate debated her nomination, Senator Barbara Boxer charged that Rice “frightened the American people” into supporting the Iraq War; Senator Jim Jeffordsaccused her of being part of an effort to “distort information” in the service of “political objectives”; and Senator Pat Leahy, who voted in her favor, endorsed her by saying that her tenure as national-security adviser lacked “strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment.”

Hey, that’s racist. But so is this cartoon by Ted Rall, who has the then-Secretary of State saying she was Bush’s ‘house nigga.”

Jeff Danziger, whose cartoons are syndicated in The New York Times, had a caricature of “a big-lipped, barely literate Condoleezza Rice, nursing the aluminum tubes cited by the White House as evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Johnson is dead on in her assessment that there’s a difference when someone calls you a “house nigga,” and when someone calls you incompetent. One is blatantly racist, while the other is isn’t. It’s not that hard to comprehend. Ambassador Rice misled the American people – and we deserve answers.

Anti Obamacare activists given new life with U.S. Supreme Court order for new hearing on Obamacare religious school challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court has breathed new life into the anti Obamacare movement by ordering the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals court to hear Liberty University’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare. The university had brought an action against having to implement the law on the grounds of equal protection and religious freedom. President Obama insisted during the presidential campaign that religious freedom would not be inhibited or an issue for religious colleges and religious organizations would have to consider.

According to Fox News, the school is challenging being forced to provide insurance which pay for birth control against the institution’s constitutional rights. Liberty University and many opponents firmly believe that religious institutions are protected from having to adhere to this constitutional violation under the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.

It appeared that many had seemingly resigned themselves to being victimized by the June U.S. Supreme Court decision as well as the recent reelection of Obama which appeared to defeat overturning the bill. But, legal sanity still prevails in the form of state leaders that are now openly opposing the merits of the law with renewed determination.

A number of republican governors are not waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to analyze the tea leaves in order to take concerted action against this draconian and oppressive federal interventionist law. The governors refuse to have their citizens burdened as Governor Kasich of Ohio warned, “States do not have any flexibility to build and manage exchanges in ways that respond to unique needs of their citizens or markets.”

Monday, November 26th, according to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, over 16 states have already indicated that they will not be implementing Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges in their states. In fact, Ohio governor John Kasich was joined by Texas governor Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sean Parnell of Alaska, and John Heineman of Nebraska, among others in opposition to state-run health exchanges.

In effect, these governors are providing the lead for Obamacare battleground opponents who can slow down and eventually reduce the implementation of the most odorous and oppressive aspects of the bill.

Democrats who have been doing the happy dance over the reelection of President Obama should slow down that roll to a “wait and see” crawl. More and more states and their citizens will rally against full implementation of the law based upon being deprived of their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Others will seek protection of their religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.

If anyone believes that this issue of the illegality of Obamacare is over because of an election, then wait and see the fallout in 2013, when tens of thousands of employers continue to either cut employee hours or lay off employees rather than go bankrupt.

In fact Newsmax reported that more than a dozen top American firms have initiated plans to cut thousands of employees due to Obamacare implementation challenges. Some of those firms include, “Smith & Nephew with 770 layoffs; and Abbott Labs plans 700 layoffs. In addition, Covidien projects 595 layoffs; and Kinetic Concepts — 427 layoffs. Dana Holding Corp, which is a global auto parts manufacturing company plan layoffs as well.”

How unique is it that a Liberty University remains in the fight for America’s liberty to not be subjected to a law that deprives Americans and religious institutions of their constitutional liberties. As Patrick Henry stated after Britain’s King George kept implementing unjust immoral laws against America’s colonial liberties,

Patrick Henry:
“Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed…so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.”

Stand with Liberty University and stand for your family’s liberty as a gift you give for your children’s future and liberty.

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy declared he is exempt from overview by Egyptian courts, saying they cannot overturn any decision or law he has issued since taking office or until a new Egyptian constitution is finalized. Morsy also decreed that Egypt’s courts will have no authority or oversight over a constitution-writing panel dominated by Islamists. The Islamists on the panel are striving to impose Sharia Islamic law on the country’s inhabitants.

The general assembly of the Egypt Judges Club is calling for a nationwide judicial strike. Egypt’s Supreme Judicial Council expressed “dismay” over Morsy’s decision.

Morsy’s edict was “deemed necessary in order to hold accountable those responsible for the corruption as well as other crimes during the previous regime and the transitional period” by his office.

Yet such claims and assurances that Morsy’s new powers are only “temporary,” have not quieted the uproar coming from those who are now describing Morsy as a dictator; Egypt’s new Pharaoh.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of Egypt’s Constitution Party who had opposed Morsy for president said: “There is no room for compromise. If he wants a dialogue, he has to rescind these measures.”

Thousands in Egypt have taken to the streets to demonstrate against what they call an undemocratic power grab by Morsy.

Islamist expert Andrew Bostom, who wrote the book “Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism” warns: “Morsy appears to be fulfilling the [Islamists’] and his own long shared desire to re-create a Sharia supremacist Egyptian state.”

Islamist theocracies dominated by Sharia law create a system where Western-style rights are suppressed; where Muslim men rule over Muslim women, Christians and Jews. Under Sharia law non-believers are permitted to live provided they pay Dhimmi taxes and submit to third or fourth class status, constantly remaining subject to false accusations and acrimonious treatment.

Despite Morsy’s actions being an abrogation of the “Arab Spring” democracy movement Obama supported the White House has remained silent.

Morsy’s moves came while he was still basking in praise from both Obama and Hillary Clinton for mediating between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, helping bring about a cease-fire.

Why no outcry denouncing Morsy’s power grab from the Oval Office?

For two years, has not Obama painted himself a lover of the democratic movement? Was it not Obama who called for former Egyptian President Mubarak to step down because he was a dictator?